i
USAID/MALAWI MONITORING, 
EVALUATION AND LEARNING 
SUPPORT (MELS) PROJECT
Verification Report for the Modern Cooking for Healthy Forests Project
AID-OAA-I-15-00022 / AID-612-TO-17-00001
Submitted: January 25, 2022
Resubmitted: February 19, 2022
International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 
8618 Westwood Center Drive, #400
Vienna, VA 22182
DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared by International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. (IBTCI) for review 
by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The views expressed in this 
report do not necessarily reflect the views of the USAID or the United States Government (USG). 
ii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................................................. iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................. 1
1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................... 2
2. OVERALL METHODOLOGY/APPROACH................................................................................................. 4
3. MCHF VERIFICATION FINDINGS................................................................................................................. 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................................................13
Annex 1: Sampled and Verified Cases.................................................................................................................14
Annex 2: Unreported Cases Revealed in Nkhatabay ......................................................................................16
Annex 3: Unreported Cases Revealed in Zomba.............................................................................................17
iii
ACRONYMS
AgDiv Agricultural Diversification
AMELP Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan
DFO District Forestry Office
DOF Department of Forestry
DQA Data Quality Assessment
ENV Environment 
FCDO Foreign, Commonwealth, Development Office 
FTF Feed the Future
FY Financial Year
GCC Global Climate Change
GoM Government of Malawi
IDIQ
LQAS 
Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity
Lot Quality Assurance Sampling
LWT Lilongwe Wildlife Trust
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MCHF Modern Cooking for Healthy Forests 
MELS Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Support 
MPS Malawi Police Service
PERFORM Protecting Ecosystems and Restoring Forests in Malawi Activity
PIRS Performance Indicator Reference Sheet
REDD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation
SEG Sustainable Economic Growth 
UK United Kingdom
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USG United States Government
WAG Wildlife Action Group
WiCIS Wildlife Crime Information System
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides results from a verification activity conducted by the Malawi Monitoring 
Evaluation and Learning Support (MELS) team of an outcome indicator reported by the 
Modern Cooking for Healthy Forests (MCHF) project in Malawi for Financial Year 2021 
(FY21). This exercise covered MCHF activities from October 2020 to September 2021. The 
team verified the following indicator: 
• Percent change in annual conviction rate for illegal charcoal and other forestry crime 
activities.
The MELS team applied a three-stage verification approach checking calculations at the first 
stage, looking for the existence of source documents at the second stage, and conducting 
spot checks in the field during the third stage of the verification activity. The MELS team 
adapted techniques from the Lot Quality Assurance Sampling (LQAS) when selecting 
criminal cases for the spot checks. In total, 70 cases were randomly selected across five 
MCHF districts. 
The first two stages of the verification demonstrated good data management at the MCHF 
head office level: all calculations and formulas were correct, and all source documents (i.e., 
data forms) were available for verification, and they matched reported data. 
The final evaluation stage revealed one location (Dedza District) where the MELS team could 
not find sufficient evidence to justify reported data, and there were two locations (Zomba 
and Nkhatabay Districts) where the MELS team found additional cases that were not 
included in the MCHF report, i.e., the overall result was that MCHF underreported the 
convictions data. Most underreported cases were registered from July to September 2021.
MCHF did not report the cases because the Government of Malawi (GoM) responsible for 
providing the data did not collect and share data for Q4 FY21. According to the agreement 
between MCHF and GoM, it is the GoM that collects and shares the results with MCHF. 
The government was unable to complete the data collection, and MCHF had to submit the 
report to USAID without the Q4 data. MCHF provided necessary explanations to USAID.
Despite the revealed inconsistencies, taking into account both overreported and 
underreported locations, and applying the LQAS technique, the MELS team finds the 
indicator values reported by MCHF to USAID for FY21 acceptable. 
The major issues that could influence MCHF’s data quality were the GOM’s lack of a 
centralized database that could accumulate criminal cases from various agencies, and data 
inconsistencies across different reporting organizations/partners. . Different data 
management systems and requirements at the court and police levels led to instances where 
case data showed up as either incomplete, lost, damaged, misplaced or possibly incorrectly 
recorded.
The main recommendations from the MELS team would be to establish closer relations with 
the local organizations (courts, police) to facilitate exchange of information, and to revise 
PIRS to reflect current changes in the conviction rate definition. 
Throughout the process, the MCHF team was cooperative and transparent and provided the 
MELS team with all necessary assistance. 
2
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the MELS activity is to implement performance evaluations and assessment 
services under the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity 
Contract (IDIQ). MELS provides support to the Feed the Future (FTF) and Environment 
(Global Climate Change (GCC) and biodiversity) activities that are managed by 
USAID/Malawi’s Sustainable Economic Growth (SEG) Office. The MELS activity aims to 
achieve the following four primary objectives:
Objective 1: performance evaluations of FTF and environment activities and of the 
sustainable livelihoods project designed and implemented; 
Objective 2: assessments of FTF Malawi Ag Diversification (AgDiv) activity performance 
designed and implemented; 
Objective 3: studies and analyses on selected topical issues developed and conducted; 
and,
Objective 4: local capacity to undertake evaluations and assessments strengthened. 
The activity outlined in this report falls under Objective 3: providing studies and analyses, 
including verification activities, on selected topical issues. The verification will look at the 
indicator reported by the MCHF Project. MCHF is a five-year activity (October 1, 2019 –
September 30, 2024) co-funded by USAID and United Kingdom (UK) Foreign,
Commonwealth, Development Office (FCDO), and implemented by Tetra Tech. 
USAID and FCDO initiated this activity after revealing that the main threats to Malawi’s 
forests included unsustainable wood harvesting because of over-reliance of the local 
communities on wood fuels to meet energy needs (charcoal and firewood for cooking, fish 
smoking, and brick and tobacco curing), use of timber for construction, agriculture, and 
settlement expansion in forested areas, and harmful bushfires. As noted in the Activity
Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan (AMELP), charcoal production was the single most 
significant driver of forest loss in Malawi. More than 96 percent of households relied on 
charcoal and firewood as their primary cooking and heating fuel. Within Malawi’s 
development context, charcoal and firewood will continue to be significant sources of 
cooking and heating energy in the foreseeable future – in fact, reliance on wood fuels is 
expected to further increase with the population growth and urbanization. 
The lack of income-generating opportunities in rural areas and the lack of alternative cooking 
energy sources are the major drivers fueling the charcoal and firewood trade. As a major 
source of employment and energy, charcoal is often illegally produced in protected forest 
reserves intended to serve as critical water catchments for large populations. The MCHF 
project design enhances sustainable forest management in Malawi in select landscapes and 
promotes sustainable energy options in select urban demand centers to maintain forest 
cover and reduce land-based emissions. By increasing demand for alternative and efficient 
energy options and technologies, and expanding supply of sustainable wood fuels from well￾managed forest resources, MCHF's objectives are to reduce unsustainable tree cutting in 
both public and customary forests, improve forest cover, and conserve associated 
watersheds. The activity builds on the strong foundation laid by USAID’s Protecting 
3
Ecosystems and Restoring Forests in Malawi Activity (PERFORM), which supported effective 
governance and forest management processes, built Malawi’s Reducing Emissions from 
Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) readiness capacity, and promoted low-emission 
land use opportunities.
The MCHF activity is implemented in seven districts across Malawi, namely Mzimba and 
Nkhatabay in the North; Lilongwe, Salima, and Dedza in the Centre; and Blantyre and 
Zomba in the South. The activity has 23 indicators of which three are fee-tied. For the 
financial year 2021, only one indicator had a target and that could be verified by the MELS 
team: 
• Percent change in annual conviction rate for illegal charcoal and other forestry crime 
activities.
What follows below is a report on this indicator that reviews the results reported by MCHF
and comparative findings from the MELS team’s verification of the indicator. The report 
includes a discussion of issues or challenges related to the indicator. The MELS team also 
provides an assessment on whether or not the reported values for this indicator are
acceptable. This is the first year of reporting for MCHF; the verification is for data submitted 
in 2021. After the indicator discussion, the report finishes with conclusions and 
recommendations.
4
2. OVERALL METHODOLOGY/APPROACH 
Verification Stages
The MELS team applied a three-stage approach in its data quality verification activity. 
Stage 1: During the first stage the team met with Tetra Tech, the MCHF implementing 
organization, and its local partner, Lilongwe Wildlife Trust (LWT), to obtain a copy of 
reported data, to check calculations to make sure there were no arithmetic errors, and to 
discuss primary data sources for the reported data. 
Stage 2: During the second stage the team looked for the existence of source 
documents, i.e., reports from various locations that included the number of people 
convicted and charged with illegal charcoal and other forestry crime activities. The MELS 
team compared reported data with the data provided in the source documents. 
Stage 3: During the third stage the team randomly selected several cases for further 
verification in the primary locations where the documents originated, i.e., where the 
people were convicted/charged. The team travelled to the locations where the original 
records were stored, visited the courts and the District Police Stations of the Malawi 
Police Service (MPS), and compared reported data with the court and police records. 
Local prosecutors provided the team with additional guidance and support. The MELS 
team reviewed log books and available records from local and magistrate courts, police 
and prosecutor offices. Additionally, the team visited the District Forestry Offices (DFO) 
to triangulate the data collected from the courts and police stations, and to get the DFO 
officers’ views on the forestry-related crimes in the area.
Sampling Approach
The MELS team adapted techniques from the LQAS methods to work with this verification 
process. Given the imprecise nature of the data gathering in rural agricultural environments 
in Malawi and the need to borrow ideas from the LQAS literature, we looked at the 
measurement of confidence, which in most surveys was 95 percent. Various sources (listed 
below) tested LQAS for small sample sizes (i.e., N = 19) and found it to be a useful tool for 
sampling from a binomial distribution for an indicator that measures binary outcomes
(acceptable or unacceptable). With a 95 percent confidence interval and a small sample size 
of 19 it was determined that at least 15 cases (84 percent of the sampled cases) had to be 
confirmed via spot checks to deem the reported data batch acceptable. If the team could not 
find evidence for four or more cases, then the whole data batch would be deemed to be 
unacceptable. We can say that the data is acceptable if the source documents exist for 84
percent or more of the data.1
 1 Using LQAS for Baseline Surveys and Regular Monitoring, Manual, 2002; and Review of Health and Agriculture 
Project Monitoring Tools for Title II Funded PVOs, Prepared for Food Aid Management by Thomas P. Davis Jr., 
MPH & Julie Mobley, MSPH, 2001. 
5
Table 1: Sample of Cases for Spot Checks
Location/ District Sample Size
Salima 20
Dedza 19
Mzimba* 18
Zomba* 13
Nkhata Bay** 0
Total: 70
* Because the total number of cases in Mzimba and Zomba was less than 19, the team verified all available 
cases.
** Although no cases were reported in Nkhata Bay, the team visited this district to verify it as well.
Main limitations
The main limitation for the verification activity was poor data management at the local level:
• Data storage is not centralized across government agencies. 
• Reported data is inconsistent across different data sources (i.e., courts, police, LWT, 
and DFO). Different data management systems and requirements at the court and 
police levels led to instances where case data showed up as either incomplete, lost, 
damaged, misplaced or possibly incorrectly recorded.
• Some court officers fail to record court cases, or record the case partially, or record it 
with large delays. 
• Most police stations and courts do not have computers in the offices, and many criminal
cases are hand-written in special registers that are prone to damage and loss. 
• The courts’ registers often do not contain information on the cases’ outcomes. 
Figure 1: Examples of Source Documents (Court Registers) in the Field
6
3. MCHF VERIFICATION FINDINGS
3.1 Verification of Calculations
MCHF reported the following data to USAID: 
Indicator: Change in annual conviction rate for illegal charcoal and other forestry 
crime activities.
Baseline
Value
FY21
Value
Indicator 
change actual2
Indicator 
change target
Conviction rate3 93.75% 100.00% 6.25% 
increase
5.00% 
increase
MCHF used the following data in the calculations: 
Baseline
Value
FY21
Value
Number of people charged 216 412
Number of people convicted 195 343
Number of people acquitted 13 0
Outstanding cases 8 69
Conviction rate 93.75% 100.00%
The Performance Indicator Reference Sheet (PIRS) provided by MCHF outlined that “The 
conviction rate will be expressed as a percentage, where the numerator is the number of convictions 
and the denominator is the number of people charged.” However, MCHF, in agreement with 
USAID, adjusted the indicator definition to reflect the number of outstanding cases, which 
can sometimes take over a year to conclude4
. MCHF used the following formula for 
calculation of the conviction rate: 
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅 = 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑁𝑁 𝑜𝑜 𝑝𝑝 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑐𝑐
(𝑁𝑁 . 𝑜𝑜 𝑝𝑝 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 ℎ 𝑎𝑎 − 𝑁𝑁 . 𝑜𝑜 𝑢𝑢 ) ∗ 100
LWT used the same conviction rate formula to report data to USAID, the U.S. Department 
of State, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, and to other bilateral and private donors. It is 
recommended to update the MCHF PIRS to reflect the indicator definition changes there. 
During the first stage of the verification activity the MELS team checked all calculations and 
formulas to make sure there were no mathematical errors. All calculations in the electronic 
database were correct, and the reported results matched the data. The MELS team did not 
reveal any issues at this verification stage.
 2 Indicator change actual = FY21 value - Baseline value 3 Conviction rate = Number of people convicted/(Number of people charged - Number of unresolved cases)*100 4 The conviction rate measure is based on what is used in the wildlife sector where they exclude 
outstanding/unresolved cases after they have specified what the MCHF PIRS say. The agreement with USAID was 
to use the calculation that excludes the unresolved cases as shown.
7
3.2 Verification of Source Documents 
In FY21 MCHF collected conviction data with the support from Malawi Police Services’ 
(MPS) Prosecutions Department, Department of Forestry (DoF), Wildlife Action Group 
(WAG), and LWT’s Justice Department. MCHF followed this approach to expand the scope 
of data collection to ensure the project had access to as much of the nation-wide data as 
possible. MCHF received a total of 443 data forms for the FY21, rejected 31 forms, because 
they contained critical discrepancies, and accepted 412 cases that were eventually used in 
the reporting. 
The data forms comprised of data collected by the LWT court monitors, data provided by 
DoF, WAG, and MPS. It should be noted that there was no centralized data storage, and 
each GOM partner used its own approaches and instruments to store collected data.
Table 2: Data Collection and Storage Approaches Used by Partners
Partners Data Collection and Storage Approach
The Lilongwe Wildlife Trust Wildlife Crime Information System
Local and magistrate courts Manual registers
Malawi Police Service Manual registers
Wildlife Action Group Electronic registers
Department of Forestry Written reports
LWT uses a data collection and storage system called Wildlife Crime Information System 
(WiCIS). It tracks conviction data at different levels, and contains data for both wildlife and 
forestry criminal cases (see Figure 2 below). LWT has monitors across the country who 
collect data electronically using the WiCIS forms. LWT accumulates and processes such 
data. 
Figure 2: Wildlife Crime Information System Dashboard
8
MCHF, through LWT, employed a special KoBo Toolbox (see Figure 3 below) to collect and 
store various data on wildlife and forestry crimes: accusations, remands, charges, sentences, 
convictions, and other data. 
Figure 3: KoBo Toolbox
Other local partners and institutions that collected data on forestry crimes and provided it 
to LWT had their own data management systems and tools: MPS and many local and 
magistrate courts had manual registers, LWT and WAG used electronic registers and forms, 
and DOF provided LWT with written reports. Due to the lack of a harmonized data 
collection and storage system, MCHF had to deal with various data sources and process 
various data types. 
During the second stage the MELS team looked for the existence of source documents, such 
as data forms, and compared reported data with the data provided in the source documents.
All reported data matched source documents available in the MCHF office. 
3.3 Spot Checks in the Field 
As described in the methodology section, the MELS team randomly selected several criminal 
cases for further spot checks, and travelled to the primary locations to compare reported 
data with court and police records. The team visited the local prosecutor’s offices of the 
District Police Stations, where the verification process usually started, and reviewed police 
registers and records. The prosecutors provided the team with necessary guidance and 
support. Then, the MELS team visited relevant courts to see court registers. The verification 
9
team reviewed log books and available records from courts of two levels: local and
magistrate. If the courts, the police stations, and the prosecutor’s offices did not have any 
evidence of a specific criminal case, the team considered such case as “not verified.”
Overall, the verification team sampled 70 cases across 5 districts confirming data in two 
locations (Salima and Mzimba), not accepting data in one location (Dedza), and revealing 
additional cases in two other locations (Zomba and Nkhatabay). Details are provided in 
Table 3 below. 
Table 3: Sampled and Verified Cases 
Location/ 
District
Number of 
Reported 
Cases
Number of 
Verified/ 
Confirmed 
Cases
Percent of 
Verified/ 
Confirmed 
Cases
Comments
Salima 20 18 90.0 Acceptable
Mzimba 18 15 83.3 Acceptable
Dedza 19 11 57.9 Not acceptable
Zomba 13 17 130.8 Underreported**
Nkhatabay* 0 17 n/a Underreported**
Total: 70 78 111.4 Underreported
* MCHF did not report any cases in Nkhatabay, but the verification team still went there to do the 
verification activity. The MELS team found 17 relevant cases there, which were not in the report.
** Most underreported cases were registered from July to September 2021. MCHF did not report the 
cases because the GoM responsible for providing the data did not collect and share data for Q4 FY21.
Salima District. The team randomly sampled 20 cases in Salima District for spot 
checks and verified 18 of them (90 percent of the cases): the team found two cases in 
the Salima Police Station, and then additional 16 cases in the Salima Magistrate Court. 
There was no evidence of the two cases in the court and the police station despite 
availability of exact case numbers. A court clerk said that they were supposed to 
register each case right after the court session was over. However, he admitted that the 
clerks were tired sometimes and did not do it the same day, and could even forget to 
register a case afterwards. Overall, the LQAS approach considers all data in Salima 
District to be acceptable. 
Table 4: Spot Checks in Salima District 
Spot Checks in Salima District
Data Sources
Number of Verified/
Confirmed Cases
Salima Police Station 2
Salima Magistrate Court 16
Total number of verified cases: 18
Total number of non-verified cases: 2
Conclusion: Acceptable
10
Mzimba District. Because Mzimba District had only 18 registered cases in FY21, the 
verification team spot checked all of them, and managed to verify 15 cases (83.3 percent 
of the cases): the team found 11 cases in the Mzimba Police Station, and then an 
additional four cases in the Mzimba Magistrate Court. There was no evidence of the 
three cases in the court and the police station. Overall, the LQAS approach considers 
all data in Mzimba District to be acceptable. 
Table 5: Spot Checks in Mzimba District 
Spot Checks in Mzimba District
Data Sources
Number of Verified/
Confirmed Cases
Mzimba Police Station 11
Mzimba Magistrate Court 4
Total number of verified cases: 15
Total number of non-verified cases: 3
Conclusion: Acceptable
Dedza District. The team randomly sampled 19 cases in Dedza District for spot 
checks and verified 11 of them (57.9 percent of the cases): the team found 11 cases in 
the Dedza Police Station, but even with the help of a local prosecutor could not find any 
additional cases beyond that in the courts. The verification team looked through log 
books and registers in the local and magistrate courts. There was no evidence of the 
eight cases in the courts and the police station despite availability of exact case numbers 
and guidance provided by the local prosecutor there. The overall numbers for MCHF 
are within range due to overreported and underreported cases but if Dedza was 
evaluated on its own it would not be acceptable.
Table 6: Spot Checks in Dedza District 
Spot Checks in Dedza District
Data Sources
Number of Verified/
Confirmed Cases
Dedza Police Station 11
Dedza local and magistrate courts 0
Total number of verified cases: 11
Total number of non-verified cases: 8
Conclusion: Not Acceptable
Zomba District. Because Zomba District had only 13 registered cases in FY21, the 
verification team spot checked all of them, and managed to verify 10 cases from the list
(76.9 percent of the cases): two cases in the Zomba Police Station, and eight cases in 
the Zomba Chief Residence Magistrate Court. However, the District Court 
Administrator informed the verification team that there were seven more forestry cases 
in the court that the team was not aware of; the seven cases took place between April 
and September 2021 (details are provided in the Annex 3 to the report). It means that 
11
MCHF underreported data, and there were additional conviction cases that the project 
team did not identify. Considering the new data found by the verification team, the data 
in Zomba District is acceptable, but underreported. 
It should be noted that most of the underreported cases were registered from July to 
September 2021 (five out of seven underreported cases), i.e., MCHF did not report the 
cases because the GoM responsible for providing the data did not collect and share data 
for Q4 (July, August, and September). According to the agreement between MCHF and 
GoM, it is the GoM that collects and shares the results with MCHF. The government 
was unable to complete the data collection because of COVID and other reasons, and 
MCHF had to submit the report to USAID without the Q4 data. MCHF provided 
necessary explanations to USAID. 
Table 7: Spot Checks in Zomba District 
Spot Checks in Zomba District
Data Sources
Number of Verified/
Confirmed Cases
Zomba Police Station 2
Zomba Magistrate Court 15
Total number of verified cases: 17
Total number of non-verified cases: 3
Conclusion: Acceptable 
(Underreported)
Nkhatabay District. MCHF and LWT reported no relevant criminal forestry cases in 
Nkhatabay District in FY21. Regardless, the MELS team decided to visit the district for 
verification purposes, since it was in the MCHF zone of influence. The verification team 
revealed that there were 17 forestry cases in Nkhatabay area registered from July 2021
to September 2021 (Q4, FY21). The team collected names of convicted people and 
corresponding criminal case numbers – they are provided in the Annex 2 to the report. 
It should be noted that since all underreported cases were registered from July to 
September 2021, MCHF did not report the cases because the GoM responsible for 
providing the data did not collect and share data for Q4 (July, August, and September). 
According to the agreement between MCHF and GoM, it is the GoM that collects and 
shares the results with MCHF. The government was unable to complete the data 
collection because of COVID and other reasons, and MCHF had to submit the report 
to USAID without the Q4 data. MCHF provided necessary explanations to USAID.
12
Table 8: Spot Checks in Nkhatabay District 
Spot Checks in Nkhatabay District
Data Sources
Number of Verified/
Confirmed Cases
Nkhatabay Police Station 7
Nkhatabay Magistrate Court -
Total number of verified cases: 7
Total number of non-verified cases: -
Conclusion: Acceptable 
(Underreported)
Figure 4: The MELS Team Conducting Spot Checks in the Field
13
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The main conclusions from the MCHF verification activity are: 
1. Despite the revealed inconsistencies, taking into account both overreported and 
underreported locations, and applying the LQAS technique, the MELS team finds the 
indicator values reported by MCHF to USAID for FY21 to be acceptable.
2. MCHF properly manages data at the head office level, using appropriate formulas, 
calculations, and data cleaning approaches, but there are some issues with the quality of 
data collected in the field, which is supplied to MCHF for processing. The spot checks 
revealed that there were areas where MCHF overreported and where it underreported 
the indicator values. 
3. Most underreported cases were registered from July to September 2021. MCHF did not 
report the cases because the Government of Malawi (GoM) responsible for providing 
the data did not collect and share data for Q4 FY21. According to the agreement 
between MCHF and GoM, it is the GoM that collects and shares the results with MCHF. 
The government was unable to complete the data collection, and MCHF had to submit 
the report to USAID without the Q4 data.
4. The main difficulty is that there is no centralized unified database used to accumulate
criminal cases from various government agencies and organizations. Hence, every 
organization uses its own system that varies from manually filled registers to more 
comprehensive information systems. LWT, MCHF’s local partner, has a good WiCiS
information system that helps them to collect and store data on forestry criminal cases, 
but this system does not cover all agencies and partners involved in the process. This 
leads to data inconsistencies across different organizations and data sources. 
5. In addition, there are instances, when the case data is incomplete, lost, damaged, 
misplaced, or never recorded at the level of courts and police departments. 
The MELS team recommends that MCHF: 
• Makes effort to improve the quality of data collected in the field. Some of the ways of 
achieving it could be: 
o Increasing the number of monitors that track and collect data in the field; 
o Providing additional training to the field teams on collection and processing of 
data; 
o Establishing closer relations with the local organizations (courts, police) to 
facilitate exchange of information;
• Revise PIRS to reflect current changes in the conviction rate definition.
14
Annex 1: Sampled and Verified Cases
District Case 
Reference Case Label Organization Verification 
Status
Verification 
Source
Mzimba 262/2020 Hellen Chirwa MPS/DOF Verified Police
Mzimba 262/2020 Cecelia Gama MPS/DOF Verified Police
Mzimba 149/2021 Maggie Banda MPS/DOF Verified Police
Mzimba 157/2020 Kufa Banda LWT Verified Police
Mzimba 263/2020 Frank Gondwe LWT Verified Police
Mzimba 263/2020 Gilbert Tchuwa LWT Verified Police
Mzimba 263/2020 Joel Ngoma LWT Verified Police
Mzimba 263/2020 Thulex Kumwenda LWT Verified Police
Mzimba 314/2020 Justen Mzembe LWT Verified Court
Mzimba 314/2020 Sarah Chirwa LWT Verified Court
Mzimba 314/2020 Beatrice Shaba LWT Verified Court
Mzimba 314/2020 Sikeve Jere LWT Verified Court
Mzimba 295/2021 Dokiso Chipeta LWT Verified Police
Mzimba 295/2021 Mkandawire Frank LWT Verified Police
Mzimba 295/2021 Joseph Phiri LWT Verified Police
Mzimba 301/2021 Tengeni Kamanga LWT Not verified -
Mzimba 301/2021 Wilson Banda LWT Not verified -
Mzimba 301/2021 Senzo Phiri LWT Not verified -
Salima 130/2021 Violet Mangila MPS/DOF Verified Court
Salima 130/2021 Patrick Mchochoma MPS/DOF Verified Court
Salima 164/2021 Steven George MPS/DOF Verified Court
Salima 164/2021 Grecian Chaluwa 
Gama MPS/DOF Verified Court
Salima 240/2021 Agnes Kamzingeni MPS/DOF Verified Court
Salima 240/2021 Pilirani Dickson MPS/DOF Verified Court
Salima 240/2021 John Khobwe MPS/DOF Verified Court
Salima 240/2021 Lawrence Cosmas MPS/DOF Verified Court
Salima 39/2021 Enelesi Jambo WAG Verified Court
Salima 39/2021 Criford Andrew WAG Verified Court
Salima 45/2021 Ramzaani Jafali WAG Verified Court
Salima 45/2021 Juma Sailodi WAG Verified Court
Salima 78/2021 Geleshani Ganizani WAG Verified Police
Salima 93/2021 Jomaso Kunenga WAG Verified Court
Salima 93/2021 Jangiya Budula WAG Verified Court
Salima 93/2021 Misozi Lenard WAG Verified Court
Salima 31/2021 Lafashi Nowelo WAG Verified Police
Salima 145/2021 Dorothy phillipo WAG Not verified -
Salima 145/2021 Ginny Gama WAG Not verified -
Salima 216/2021 Alinafe chauluka WAG Verified Court
15
District Case 
Reference Case Label Organization Verification 
Status
Verification 
Source
Dedza 596/2020 Rasid Adam MPS/DOF Verified Police
Dedza 596/2020 Paul Kajawo MPS/DOF Verified Police
Dedza 596/2020 Sailesi Soda MPS/DOF Verified Police
Dedza 602/2020 Josephy Lexman MPS/DOF Verified Police
Dedza 602/2020 Matthews Josa MPS/DOF Verified Police
Dedza 602/2020 Letina Vikisoni MPS/DOF Verified Police
Dedza 590/2020 Charles Gwade MPS/DOF Verified Police
Dedza 78/2021 Mavuto Davite WAG Not verified -
Dedza 78/2021 Msuwachi Aufi WAG Not verified -
Dedza 78/2021 Chibwana Mdala WAG Not verified -
Dedza 78/2021 Gribert Swali WAG Not verified -
Dedza 331/2021 Lobina Alimakoyo LWT Verified Police
Dedza 331/2021 Victor Chimbiya LWT Verified Police
Dedza 331/2021 Onoliya Deku LWT Verified Police
Dedza 330/2021 Samuel Bengo LWT Verified Police
Dedza Kamwendo Kudzala WAG Not verified -
Dedza 159/2021 Kennedy Mchenga WAG Not verified -
Dedza 159/2021 Janet Mchenga WAG Not verified -
Dedza 398/2021 Chitsulo Sikinala WAG Not verified -
Zomba 37/2021 Amos Gulule MPS/DOF Verified Police
Zomba 37/2021 Yohane Makalane MPS/DOF Verified Police
Zomba 89/2021 Elias Mapemba LWT Not verified -
Zomba 89/2021 Mohammed Ganizani LWT Not verified -
Zomba 89/21 Nkhoma Hendrix LWT Not verified -
Zomba 45/2021 Patuma Dennis MPS/DOF Verified Court
Zomba 45/2021 Jonathan Twaibu MPS/DOF Verified Court
Zomba 45/2021 Alidi Matiki MPS/DOF Verified Court
Zomba 45/2021 Khalilullah Shareef MPS/DOF Verified Court
Zomba 45/2021 Benard James MPS/DOF Verified Court
Zomba 34/2021 Rudo Samu MPS/DOF Verified Court
Zomba 34/2021 Modester Osman MPS/DOF Verified Court
Zomba 34/2021 Lenna Munyamba MPS/DOF Verified Court
16
Annex 2: Unreported Cases Revealed in Nkhatabay
District Case 
Reference Case label Verification Source Case 
Period*
Court 
Type
Nkhatabay 98/2021 Nelia Mwiya Nkhatabay Police Station Jul-21 SRM
Nkhatabay 98/2021 Ireen Mpezeni Nkhatabay Police Station Jul-21 SRM
Nkhatabay 98/2021 Mercy Mwase Nkhatabay Police Station Jul-21 SRM
Nkhatabay 100/2021 Costa Chembezi Nkhatabay Police Station Jul-21 SRM
Nkhatabay 101/2021 Moses Chaya Nkhatabay Police Station Jul-21 SRM
Nkhatabay 94/2021
Davison 
Chakhumbira Nkhatabay Police Station Jul-21 SRM
Nkhatabay 94/2021 Samson Kasambala Nkhatabay Police Station Jul-21 SRM
Nkhatabay 92/2021 Grace Mphande Nkhatabay Police Station Jul-21 SRM
Nkhatabay 92/2021 Mwayi Mphande Nkhatabay Police Station Jul-21 SRM
Nkhatabay 95/2021 Elemia Nyirenda Nkhatabay Police Station Jul-21 SRM
Nkhatabay 95/2021 Jessy Nyirenda Nkhatabay Police Station Jul-21 SRM
Nkhatabay 91/2021 Lovemore Longwe Nkhatabay Police Station Jul-21 SRM
Nkhatabay 78/2021 Elizabeth Mzima Nkhatabay Police Station Jul-21 FGM
Nkhatabay 108/2021 Moses Munyimbire Nkhatabay Police Station Aug-21 SRM
Nkhatabay 218/2021 Charity Mwase Nkhatabay Police Station Sep-21 FGM
Nkhatabay 219/2021 Charels Mbewe Nkhatabay Police Station Sep-21 FGM
Nkhatabay 117/2021 Bosi Mhone Nkhatabay Police Station Sep-21 SRM
* It should be noted that since all underreported cases were registered from July to September 2021, MCHF did not report 
the cases because the Government of Malawi (GoM) responsible for providing the data did not collect and share data for 
Q4 (July, August, and September). According to the agreement between MCHF and GoM, it is the GoM that collects and 
shares the results with MCHF. The government was unable to complete the data collection because of COVID and other 
reasons, and MCHF had to submit the report to USAID without the Q4 data. MCHF provided necessary explanations to 
USAID.
17
Annex 3: Unreported Cases Revealed in Zomba
District Case 
Reference Case label Verification Source Case Period*
Zomba 205/21 Gift Banda Mulunguzi Magistrate Court April 2021
Zomba 212/21 Bester Chimkango Mulunguzi Magistrate Court April 2021
Zomba 312/21 Wellington Amadu Mulunguzi Magistrate Court July 2021
Zomba 316/21 Kamuloni Songolo Mulunguzi Magistrate Court July 2021
Zomba 341/21 Steven Spy Mulunguzi Magistrate Court August 2021
Zomba 341/21 Luke Mkandawire Mulunguzi Magistrate Court August 2021
Zomba 370/21 Harry Jafu Mulunguzi Magistrate Court September 2021
* It should be noted that most of the underreported cases were registered from July to September 2021 (five out of seven 
underreported cases), i.e., MCHF did not report the cases because the Government of Malawi (GoM) responsible for 
providing the data did not collect and share data for Q4 (July, August, and September). According to the agreement between 
MCHF and GoM, it is the GoM that collects and shares the results with MCHF. The government was unable to complete the 
data collection because of COVID and other reasons, and MCHF had to submit the report to USAID without the Q4 data. 
MCHF provided necessary explanations to USAID.